‘Complete the integrated digital data collection and verification of landless squatters and unorganized settlers across the country within 60 days and resolve the landless squatters and unorganized settlers problem within 1000 days... Provide land to identified real squatters in a phased manner or make arrangements for their rehabilitation through integrated housing in dense urban areas.’

This is the 91st point of the 100-point agenda passed by the RSVP-led Council of Ministers on Chaitra 13, 2082. This is not a political declaration but a policy decision of the government. This decision, which is consistent with the Constitution, prevailing laws and judicial orders, had raised legitimate expectations among millions of landless squatters and unorganized settlers across the country – the government will first identify and verify them, and then proceed with the process of legal management. In fact, during the election, Balendra Shah or RSP Chairman Ravi Lamichhane, who was presented as the Prime Minister of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to the voters, had also promised that the sit-in would not be forced, but would be managed legally.

However, the government's decision did not last even a month. The government moved in the opposite direction. As soon as the Prime Minister assumed the responsibility of the Home Minister, security agencies were widely mobilized under his direction. A 48-hour sit-in notice was issued in settlements including Thapathali, creating a situation of psychological panic, after which an aggressive sit-in campaign was launched. Construction equipment, dozers, were misused for demolition. Several settlements in the Kathmandu Valley were demolished. More than fifteen thousand citizens from more than three thousand families were displaced.

The government's failure to be good governance-friendly, i.e. predictable, trustworthy and reliable, has spread deep fear among the landless, squatter and unorganized settlement communities across the country. Anger and extreme disappointment have arisen. The sit-in campaign was stopped only after the Supreme Court issued an interim order concluding that the methods and procedures prescribed by law were violated during the removal from the settlements. However, the expected honesty from the state side has not been seen in the implementation of the order. In some places outside Kathmandu, including Kohalpur, there have been sit-ins even after the order. The government's failure to be good governance-friendly, i.e. predictable, trustworthy and reliable, has spread deep fear among the landless, squatter and unorganized settlement communities across the country. Anger and extreme disappointment have arisen.

All those who have been forcibly displaced and those at risk of displacement are agitating. Although the government has announced that the maximum period of stay in the holding center will be 15 days, even after two months, the government has not brought a clear blueprint and plan for reliable housing. Despite the Supreme Court's order to ensure humane treatment and basic socio-economic rights, extreme ad hocism continues in the operation of the holding center. The fact that displaced families are suffering from food insecurity due to lack of basic food has come to light. The education of hundreds of children is still disrupted. Patients have not been able to get proper treatment. The death of one person due to lack of proper treatment has been made public.

The vicious cycle of serious human rights violations created during the sit-in continues in the holding center as well. What is the condition of the displaced outside the holding center? No one has taken stock of it. There is a parliamentary committee concerned with the poor, marginalized, discriminated and excluded classes and communities, but it does not seem to be monitoring the government's illegal, inhumane and anti-good governance behavior. There are National Human Rights Commission and other commissions, but they have not been able to carry out effective monitoring.

The very origin of the institution called ‘state’ was to protect the life, freedom and property of the people. However, evictions have attacked these very basic values. It has taken away the basis for living with dignity from the poor and marginalized citizens. A disproportionate burden has been imposed on the communities that need special protection. The property that families have accumulated through hardship has been destroyed. The basis and evidence of the identity of many families have been destroyed. Overall, it has seriously harmed the self-respect and right to a life with human dignity of thousands of citizens.

Due to these side effects of forced evictions, human rights law and jurisprudence have considered forced evictions as a serious human rights violation. The issue of ‘widespread and planned’ destruction of human habitats and forcible displacement of civilians has also been included as a crime against humanity in international law.

It is a reality that poor and marginalized communities have been evicted from their land for decades due to state policies, laws and practices. Against this backdrop, landlessness, homelessness and squatter problems have long been at the center of social and political movements. Landlessness was one of the structural causes of the decade-long armed conflict. This is also clearly expressed in the 40-point demand presented by the then United People’s Front before engaging in armed conflict. This is also confirmed by the demand for land distribution to landless farmers in point 27 and for no one to be evicted without giving them an alternative in point 31. This is also confirmed by the demand for this historical reality. In the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Interim Constitution and the current Constitution, housing and land-related issues have not been limited to directive principles and policies but have been given a place under fundamental rights.

The Constitution itself has addressed the issue of the rights, interests and management of landless squatters to some extent. It is seen as the basis for sustainable peace, social justice and equitable prosperity.

Therefore, after the promulgation of the Constitution in 2072, this issue has entered a new phase. The Constitution does not accept the issue of criminalizing and forcibly displacing landless squatters by labeling them as ‘encroachers’. Such behavior is a gross violation of the social contract. Legal provisions enacted after the Constitution, including the Right to Housing Act, 2075, the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act, 2075 and the Eighth Amendment to the Land Act, 2021 (2076), have established the legal status of landless squatters and unorganized settlers. Landless Dalits and landless squatters have been recognized as victims of historical injustice, discrimination and exclusion. The law has prescribed a clear process for their identification, verification and management. The constitution clearly states that the state’s relationship with them is not one of prohibition and oppression, but of protection and management.

Despite extensive changes in the constitutional and legal perspectives, the biased government behavior and social perspective remain the same. Most state officials and a section of society have viewed the landless community as criminals. Even after the people-made constitution came into being, squatters have repeatedly resorted to alternative squatting and, in recent times, the excesses of the past have taken a leap forward in atrocities.

Whenever the issue of removing settlements on riverbanks, public or government land is raised, the same commentary is repeated in public debate – encroachments must be removed. Squatting has been portrayed as an indispensable element of public interest, environmental protection, development projects or urban beautification.

From the perspective of human rights and social justice, there is a serious problem in this commentary. It sees the land, not the people, the structure, not the life within the structure, it looks at the ownership papers but does not try to understand the reality of human coexistence.

This commentary may seem normal to many. However, it is extremely cruel to the families forced to suffer the consequences. There is a serious aspect to consider here – where are we starting the debate – from the land or from life? If we start from the land, then the uprising may seem appropriate. However, only if we start from life and human dignity can the true depth of the problem be grasped.

The public debate is not being informed. It is clouded by great confusion. It is necessary to distinguish between ‘encroachment’ and ‘shelter’. It is not reasonable to put in the same basket a person who occupies government or public property for greed, profit and greed and a family who builds a tent on public and government land in search of shelter to survive.

However, the cruel rhetoric of encroachment has erased this distinction. As a result, citizens who are forced to seek shelter due to landlessness, poverty, historical exclusion, caste discrimination, disaster or violence have also been declared ‘encroachers’ and collectively punished by being evicted. Another important aspect is that the question of landlessness is not only related to the presence or absence of land titles. It is not a mathematical concept. Even if someone has land, it may not be habitable. It may not be useful for the family’s livelihood. In a situation where housing or economic problems are not resolved, it is not fair to assess the situation of a person solely on the basis of the land titles in the name of a family member. The narrow concept of ownership obscures the social, economic, cultural and historical dimensions of landlessness. Recognizing this reality, the Constitution and law have made special provisions for the management of irregular settlements and landless squatters.

Another serious problem seen in the context of squatting is the neglect of due process. The basic principle of the rule of law is – first establish the facts, then make a factual decision. However, here, the bulldozer was used first, verification was postponed, people were displaced first, and then they were asked to understand their situation. This is not just an administrative weakness but a deliberate practice of the opposite of the rule of law. This is not good governance, it has fostered misgovernance, and has internalized arbitrariness.

The issue to be understood is – the verification process is not technical. Who is landless? Who is entitled to rehabilitation? Or who needs alternative housing? Verification determines this. Eviction without verification is punishment before investigation. Doing this is not justified in any way – legally, morally, humanely, spiritually or religiously.

The government has put forward the concept of ‘salvation’. It is also important to be clear about this. If a family is removed from a risky place and made homeless, and its livelihood is destroyed, children's education is disrupted, the risk of food insecurity increases among family members, and the uncertainty of safe and dignified housing is created, then it cannot be called a rescue. That is squatting. And, such squatting is a serious violation of human rights.

It is also necessary to reconsider the interpretation of public interest. In the view of a democratic and human rights-friendly constitution, public interest is not only the protection of public property - the protection of the life, dignity and existence of citizens is also a matter of public interest.

Unless there is another suitable alternative, if any public or government land has provided shelter to hundreds of landless families, it should also be seen as a public interest. It is not possible to solve this question by separating it from social and economic reality. The basic principle of human rights is that no other interest can prevail over human life and dignity.

The court's orders have also been shown to justify the eviction. However, the Supreme Court or any higher court has not said that the state can make citizens homeless without identification and verification, without making alternative arrangements. It does not appear that the order to evict in this way has been given by ignoring the aspect of human rights. Rather, the Supreme Court and high court orders have emphasized identification, verification, respectful management, and rehabilitation.

It is wrong to understand some of the court's interpretations that ownership of a settler is not established just because he is living in a government or public place as permission for forced eviction. Failure to establish ownership does not automatically make forced eviction valid. It is necessary to interpret the ownership-centered constitutional and legal provisions in a harmonious manner by placing them alongside other rights-related provisions.

Rather, the Supreme Court has established the principle of the state's guardianship obligation through various judgments and orders. The state is not only a law enforcement agency, but also a protector of citizens in distress. विशेषगरी भूमिहीन, दलित, गरिब, महिला, बालबालिका, वृद्ध तथा अपांगता भएका नागरिकप्रति राज्यको दायित्व अझ बढी हुन्छ ।

विडम्बना के छ भने, जसप्रति राज्यको विशेष संरक्षणको दायित्व छ, तिनै समुदाय आज उठिबासको सबैभन्दा ठूलो मारमा परेका छन् । सयबुँदे कार्यसूचीको पाँचौं बुँदामा राज्यले ऐतिहासिक अन्यायका लागि क्षमायाचना गर्ने प्रतिबद्धता जनाएको थियो । तर, व्यवहारमा त्यही समुदाय उठिबासबाट सबैभन्दा बढी प्रताडित भएको छ । राज्यबाट क्षमायाचनाको हकदार ठानिएका समुदायकै कोही आत्महत्याको बाटो रोज्न बाध्य भएका छन् भने कोही गतिलो उपचार र हेरचाहको अभावमा मृत्युवरण गरिरहेका छन् । 

त्यसैले उठिबासको दर्पणमा राज्यको उल्लंघनकारी, अन्यायी, दमनकारी र असंवेदनशील अनुहार प्रतिविम्बित भएको छ । यो अनुहार बदलिएन र यसले निरन्तरता पाउँदै गयो भने राज्यप्रतिको विश्वासको संकट गहिरिँदै जान्छ र द्वन्द्वलाई जटिल बनाउँदै लैजान्छ । त्यसैले शासनको बागडोर सम्हालेकाहरूले गम्भीरतापूर्वक आत्मसमीक्षा गर्नु जरुरी छ । 

उनीहरूले बुझून्– लोकतान्त्रिक सरकारको वास्तविक सफलता सरकारी वा सार्वजनिक जग्गा खाली गर्न सक्ने क्षमतामा होइन, कमजोर नागरिकलाई कति सुरक्षित राख्न सक्छ भन्नेमा निर्भर हुन्छ । झन्डै दुईतिहाइ जनप्रतिनिधिको समर्थन प्राप्त सरकारको बहादुरी गैरकानुनी तवरले हडपेर राखिएको हदबन्दीभन्दा बढी जमिन खोसेर भूमिहीन सुकुमवासीलाई वितरण गर्ने पेचिला कुरामा देखिनेछ । डोजर राज्यको भौतिक शक्तिको माध्यम होला तर न्याय नै राज्यको वैधताको मूलाधार हो । राज्य कमजोर समुदायप्रति जति न्यायशील हुन्छ, त्यति नै उसले वैधता र विश्वसनीयता आर्जन गर्दै जान्छ । लोकतान्त्रिक राज्यको असल छवि निर्माण डोजरबाट होइन, न्यायबाट बन्छ । 

त्यसैले बहसलाई जग्गा अतिक्रमणको साँघुरो घेराबाट बाहिर निकाल्नु आवश्यक छ । बहस भूमिहीनता, आवासको अधिकार, सामाजिक न्याय, मानव मर्यादा, दिगो शान्ति, द्वन्द्व व्यवस्थापन, सामाजिक पुनर्एकीकरण र मेलमिलापका समष्टिगत विषयमा हुनुपर्छ । दोहोरो मापदण्ड र द्वैध चरित्रमा पूर्णविराम लाग्नुपर्छ ।